Friday, March 16, 2007

Normally, you would think society would discourage people from engaging in destructive behavior. Take alcoholism for example. Although influenced by genetics, it’s fundamentally a behavior. Alcoholism is associated with a reduced life expectancy of 5 to 10 years, chronic and sometimes fatal liver cancer, pneumonia, higher rates of suicide, and mental disabilities. Costly treatment usually helps only 30% of those seeking it. Naturally, society does whatever it can to discourage people from abusing alcohol and falling into alcoholism.

There’s another behavioral condition that reduces one’s life expectancy by up to 25 years, is associated with chronic and sometimes fatal liver cancer, fatal immune system disease, fatal rectal cancer and higher rates of suicide. Yet treatment usually results in a 50% success rate. The difference is that society often applauds and encourages this behavior. What am I talking about? It’s called homosexuality.

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover wrote this striking comparison of alcoholism and homosexuality in his book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. The comparison shows that homosexual behavior is more dangerous than alcoholism. What’s so sad is that alcoholism is discouraged and frowned upon while homosexuality is applauded and even celebrated by many in society.

True concern for homosexuals involves confronting - not endorsing homosexual behavior. While this might not be popular, it’s the right and loving thing to do.

A while back Karl Bremer interviewed Tom Prichard about Sodomy Laws. The interview was posted on the mn-politics list.

I'm really confused.

This morning I heard Aaron Frederickson from the MN Family Council on MPR saying that the MFC absolutely opposes the medicinal use of marijuana for even sick and dying cancer and AIDS patients, even if that's the only medicine that relieves their pain and suffering.

But yesterday I spent nearly an hour on the phone talking anal and oral sex with MFC President Tom Prichard and he insisted that the Number One reason his group opposes repealing the sodomy and fornication statues are the public health consequences resulting from those activities. In fact, I got the impression that Prichard and his followers were more concerned with torn rectal linings of anal sex practitioners than they were about the morality of anal sex. Of course, that could be a ruse in order to make his case more palatable than the usual bible-thumping Sodom-and-Gomorrah rantings, but he sure did seem to know a lot about rectal linings.

Prichard is so concerned about the public health consequences of the anal sex, in fact, that he thinks it is even a more serious threat to the Republic than smoking. "I don't think there's any comparison of the health consequences between smoking and anal sex," Prichard told me (yes, I informed him that this was on the record for publication). "It's probably greater in the area of anal sex because of the inherent unhealthiness...I would make the case of it (anal sex) being more of a health risk than smoking."

When reminded that sodomy included oral sex, Prichard said that, like anal sex, AIDS can be transmitted via oral sex and so should be banned. When reminded that good ol' heterosexual vaginal sex also posed a risk of AIDS, Prichard said that's not true if in a married, monogomous situation, and raised the spectre of a brand new virus that is tranmitted by oral sex. But when asked which posed the greater risk--an HIV-negative gay couple in an monogomous relationship practicing oral sex or an HIV-negative heterosexual couple in a monogomous relationship practicing vaginal sex, he insisted it was the heterosexual couple that posed the lesser risk even though he had nothing to back that up.

What public health risk does oral sex between two lesbians--also sodomy under the law--present, I asked Prichard. While it might not represent the public health risk that anal sex does, Prichard says, it would have to be banned as well "from an equal protection standpoint." Whatever.

Prichard clearly is more bothered by anal sex than oral sex, and readily admitted that "I haven't studied oral sex from a medical standpoint as much." Perhaps he had an unfortunate childhood experience involving anal sex that he's trying to suppress through the oppression of those who would practice it today, but that would just be speculating. Anyway, Prichard seemed to indicate a willingness to look at exemptions for, say, married couples to practice oral sex. Of course, since same-sex marriages aren't allowed in Minnesota--and the MFC vigorously opposes them--that would preclude gay couples from enjoying the same sexual "privileges" under the law as heterosexual citizens.

In other words, the only sexual activities practiced by gays and lesbians are the ones that should be banned, but if married couples want to practice them we might be able to carve out an exemption for them. Do I sense a slight undercurrent of homophobia here? Prichard steered way clear of any morality jabs at gays, other than to say "there's kind of a social standard thing involved in banning sodomy. Evidently it's impolitic to gay-bash these days, at least when you're not wearing your sheet over your head, so he toes the public health line about why sodomy laws are needed.

But if public health is the big concern of the MFC, where have they been in the fights against smoking? And why aren't they calling for banning that public health risk? Oh, I forgot, because anal sex is the big threat to society. And based on the MFC's comments this morning, cancer and AIDS patients toking on a reefer to relieve their pain are an equally big threat

No, the MFC's agenda has nothing at all to do wth public health. Prichard talks a good line, but his homophobia is clearly evident. I'm not kidding, this guy sounds like he lives in mortal fear of big leather-clad gays lurking behind every lamppost waiting to tear his rectal lining to shreds. He insists the MFC has no plans for Sodomy Patrols roaming the streets peering into bedroom windows--meaning properly married couples need not fear his prying eyes. Keeping the sodomy laws on the books "sends a message" that society deems that activity inappropriate, says Prichard. "Just because a law isn't universally enforced" doesn't mean it isn't needed. "It's reasonable and legitimate to sanction certain behavior," he added, lumping sodomy in with incest, pornography, bestaility, prostitution and illegal drug.

He also says it allows police to arrest people engaging in sodomy "in shopping mall and public rest rooms," even though he acknowledged that public lewdness-type laws already allow for that. But the sodomy law just gives them one more tool.

So as I said, I'm confused, especially after an hour's worth of phone sex with Tom Prichard.

Confused as to how the Minnesota Family Council can claim to be concerned about the public health consequences of anal sex, but not be concerned about the pain and suffering of terminally ill patients? And confused as to how the police are going to find the time to arrest all the dying pot-smoking patients when they're busy arresting all the sodomites.

If anyone out there can help clarify these matters for me, please feel free to follow up. Perhaps you can call the Minnesota Family Council yourself: 612-789-8811.